Musharraf
Has No Other Option But to Resign
Abid Ullah Jan
GENERAL Musharraf’s royal silence over the growing demands
for his resignation shows that it is not for the Pakistanis or
their elected representatives to decide whether they require him
or not. Musharraf has not left much room for them to say no to
him.
The following facts need to be recounted
time and again to let everyone understand that not only the General
is required no more but also that resignation is a bonus compared
to what he deserves for the unprecedented violation of the Constitution
and Supreme Court rulings.
After illegally proclaiming himself
chief executive of Pakistan in his October 17, 1999 speech, General
Musharraf said that the army planned to stay in charge only so
long as was "absolutely necessary to pave the way for true
democracy.” There is, however, no standard for measuring
the “absolute necessity” except the General’s
wish to continue.
Crimes against the Constitution began
with General’s easing out President Mohammed Rafique Tarar
through an executive decree and having himself sworn in as President
under the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO). Earlier dictators
of his league had also proclaimed themselves President, but by
doing so, they had not violated the Constitution. This is because,
they had abrogated or suspended the Constitution, proclaimed Martial
Law and obtained the endorsement of a compliant judiciary for
their action under the so-called doctrine of necessity.
In his anxiety to show himself as
a different dictator, General Musharraf did not replace the Constitution
with Martial Law and kept in force the fundamental features of
the 1973 Constitution such as those relating to the election and
removal of the President, the National Assembly, the Senate, and
the judiciary.
The Supreme Court, while endorsing
his seizure of power under the doctrine of necessity, had at the
same time ruled that he could not change the basic features of
the Constitution. The list of his Musharraf’s crime extended
with violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court
judgment by removing Mr. Tarar in a manner and for reasons not
provided for in the Constitution, by proclaiming himself President
and by dissolving the Senate which, under the Constitution, is
a permanent body not subject to dissolution.
The referendum decision came against
the backdrop of his succumbing to American threats and unconditional
cooperation without trying to find out what alignment with the
US would entail. In other words, he sold Pakistan cheaply, rendering
vital services to the American cause without getting much in return.
Public funds were spent on referendum.
Teachers, municipal workers and other government servants were
forced to attend Gen Musharraf's rallies. Private transport was
forcibly hijacked for the same purpose. The General announced
a huge victory on the evening of April 30th, 2002 without any
constitutional backing.
Then
came the time for the mother of all violations. Musharraf is not
the first soldier to attempt prolonging his rule through constitutional
changes. Other dictators, however, put on the pretence of securing
the 'consent of the people' by getting them ratified by the chosen
'National Assembly' of the day. Musharraf does not believe in
such niceties. At the 'historic' press briefing on August 21,
he said: "I hereby make it part of the Constitution under
the powers vested in me by the Supreme Court and it is now the
Constitution."
When a reporter reminded the General
that under the Constitution Parliament alone had the right to
amend the Constitution and the apex court could not be expected
to give him powers that it did not have, he said: "Let those
who disagree go to court." Which court was he referring to:
The courts with intimidated judiciary and judges who accepted
to take oath under General Musharraf’s PCO?
General Musharraf’s adventure
against independence of Judiciary began on January 26, 2000 when
he issued an order requiring all Supreme and High Court judges
to take an oath that would bind them to uphold his proclamation
of emergency and the PCO. (1) This act effectively immunized officials
of the military regime from prosecution.
Fifteen judges, including the chief
justice of the Supreme Court, were removed for failure to take
the oath. Four months later, a reconstituted, quiescent Supreme
Court validated the coup and set a three-year time frame for the
restoration of democracy. The court also gave the military regime
authority to unilaterally amend the constitution. Would this court
now accept any petition against the unauthorized and illegal constitutional
amendments?
After
putting dummy assemblies in place, members of both the National
and Provincial Assemblies were fooled into taking oath under a
constitution that includes LFO and incorporates an Article (Article
270 A). It states that all decrees by the military junta since
October 12, 1999 “are affirmed and will be adopted and declared,
notwithstanding any judgment of any court, to have been validly
made by competent authority and notwithstanding anything contained
in the Constitution shall not be called in question in any court
on any ground whatsoever."
The
LFO says that no suits, prosecution or other legal proceedings
will stand in any court against any authority or any person for
or on account of or in respect of any order made since October
12, 1999. This is the height of dictatorship. Furthermore, according
to Human Rights Watch:
• Human rights conditions have deteriorated since the coup.
Political opponents and suspected wrongdoers have been subjected
to prolonged detention without charge, custodial ill treatment,
and even torture.
• Self-censorship on political issues is increasingly common
in the vernacular press, while recent developments suggest that
the English-language press is coming under official pressure as
well. On September 27, an army monitoring team conducted an unannounced,
four-hour inspection of the headquarters of daily Dawn. Although
the ostensible purpose of the inspection was to check metering
equipment for electricity billing fraud, the team demanded access
to all floors of the publishing house. According to Dawn, the
inspection was preceded by legal notices to the newspaper from
the Ministry of Information to restrict its coverage of a draft
Freedom of Information Act, and by complaints from government
officials about an article in Dawn stating that the administration
was preparing new curbs on press freedom.
•
Musharraf’s regime has further institutionalized the political
and social role of the military and the consolidation of political
authority in the military's hands. Rather than creating conditions
that are conducive to a functioning democracy, General Musharraf
has moved Pakistan further away from public accountability and
the rule of law.
Musharraf is justifying his actions
by claiming “democracy has different principles in different
societies” or “we are tailoring a new democracy for
Pakistan.” Then he goes back and claims, “I don’t
want to share power”-- “I just want to monitor.”
What kind of monitoring is it that requires putting all powers
of the land in the hands of one person?
Keeping
these and related facts in mind there is no question whether he
should resign or not. Since he has lied and so brazenly violated
the constitution, there is no option for him but to resign from
the Chief of Army Staff position and contest through legal way
to become the President.
Notes
(1) According to Human Rights Watch report, on the evening of
January 25, the chief justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court, Saeeduzzaman
Siddiqui, was summoned to Musharraf's offices. Musharraf asked
Siddiqui to take an oath of loyalty under the newly promulgated
PCO, but Siddiqui refused, saying that it was impossible for him
take a fresh oath because he had already been sworn in (Mubashir
Zaidi, "The Missing Constitution," Herald (Karachi),
February 2000).
(2)
Later that night, Interior Minister, retired General Moin-ud-Din
Haider, accompanied by two active-duty generals, went to Siddiqui's
residence and asked him to reconsider his decision, but Siddiqui
again declined. At 6:00 a.m. on January 26, an army colonel arrived
at Siddiqui's residence and told him that he should not go to
the Supreme Court that day. The area around his house was subsequently
cordoned off and no one was allowed to enter or leave his residence.
Along with Chief Justice Siddiqui, five other judges of the Supreme
Court were forced to resign when they refused to take the oath,
as were nine provincial High Court judges ("Judges who did
not take oath under the military's Provisional Constitutional
Order," Pakistan Press International, January 27, 2000).
Interior Minister Haider told Human Rights Watch that four of
the provincial judges were not invited to take the oath "as
a means of getting corrupt judges to leave" (Human Rights
Watch meeting with Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Moin-ud-Din Haider, Minister
of Interior, Narcotics Control and Capital Administration and
Development Division, New York, March 21, 2000).
The
writer is Executive Director of the Independent Center for Strategic
Studies and Analysis (ICSSA) in Pakistan. His latest book “A
War on Islam?” has just been released in UK.
